When Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in 2025, its supporters promised something approaching accountability. The bill, championed by Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all unclassified records related to the investigation and prosecution of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplices, including materials on Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs, travel records, and the names of individuals, including government officials, referenced in the investigation. The act allowed redactions only to protect victims or preserve ongoing investigations and required the DOJ to provide Congress with a report detailing what was released and what was withheld. To say the results have been mixed is an understatement.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act was born of bipartisan frustration. Survivors and many members of the public had for years watched prosecutors shield Epstein’s network. The law’s plain text made its intentions clear: within fifteen days of publication, the DOJ had to report to Congress a list of all government officials and politically exposed individuals named in the materials and justify any redactions. It forbade the DOJ from withholding documents to spare embarrassment of powerful figures. Massie and Khanna, one a libertarian Republican and the other a progressive Democrat, both insisted the files be released with little redaction and on a fixed timetable. Their effort even used a rare discharge petition to force a vote against the wishes of House leadership, a move that required 218 signatures and saw only a handful of Republicans join Democrats.

In Massie’s telling, the fight was about the rule of law: the same transparency demanded of ordinary citizens should apply to elites. Khanna echoed this sentiment, arguing that only by releasing the names and details could the public hold both abusers and complicit officials accountable. The act was signed into law with broad support and a deadline of December 19, 2025.

When the deadline arrived, the DOJ failed to comply. It released only a fraction of the files and withheld millions of pages, prompting Massie and Khanna to accuse Attorney General Pam Bondi of violating the law. The two lawmakers petitioned a federal judge to appoint a special master to supervise the release, noting that the DOJ’s December dump contained roughly 125,575 pages, far less than the millions expected, and that Bondi’s office claimed the files contained “over six million pages,” yet only 12,285 documents had been produced. Survivors and their advocates complained that this partial release included inconsistent redactions, protecting some victims’ names while exposing others, and omitted key materials such as FBI interviews and internal charging memos.

On January 30, more than six weeks late, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche held a press conference announcing what he called a “massive document dump.” The DOJ, he said, had published over three million additional pages, 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. With this release, Blanche declared, the department’s obligations under the transparency act were fulfilled. The DOJ press release boasted that nearly 3.5 million pages had now been made public and insisted that redactions were only to protect victims. Blanche emphasized that the White House had no role in the review and that the department “did not protect” President Donald Trump or any other person. According to Blanche, there would be no further document releases or prosecutions.

Critics immediately noted how far short this fell from the act’s promises. Dr. Ann Olivarius, a lawyer for some survivors, said the DOJ had identified over six million pages but released only roughly half and withheld more than 10,000 redactions. She argued that the missing materials included records about Epstein’s immunity deals and internal deliberations, precisely the evidence necessary to uncover who protected him. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) called the release “a fullblown coverup,” emphasizing that the DOJ had withheld about half of the documents and produced tens of thousands of redactions. Survivors’ attorney Jennifer Plotkin condemned the government for repeatedly failing victims, calling the release “incomplete.” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) asked bluntly, “What is the Department of Justice hiding?”

Beyond the numbers, the manner of release bred distrust. Within a day of the December dump, at least sixteen files vanished from the DOJ website without explanation, including a photograph of Donald Trump with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The DOJ said nothing, fueling suspicion. When members of Congress asked to review unredacted copies, Bondi offered to let them view documents in a secured facility but refused to provide copies. The DOJ’s own press release warned that some documents contained “uncorroborated, sensational claims” that are untrue, a preemptive dismissal that, to critics, sounded like an excuse to ignore leads.

Even more troubling than the incomplete release is who controls the investigation. The same authorities that negotiated Epstein’s notorious 2007 nonprosecution deal and suppressed information for years now decide what to reveal and whether to pursue charges. Deputy AG Blanche, formerly President Trump’s personal attorney, explicitly stated that with the January release and forthcoming report, the DOJ’s obligations under the act were over. In subsequent interviews he reiterated there would be no further prosecutions, saying that while the files contain “horrible photographs,” they do not provide a basis for new criminal cases.

The head of the FBI, Kash Patel, went further. Testifying before a Senate panel in September 2025, Patel declared there was “no credible information” that Epstein trafficked women and girls to anyone other than himself. He insisted the bureau had released “all credible information” about Epstein, suggesting there was nothing left to investigate. This statement, delivered under oath, was later cited by critics as perjury, because the newly released files contain numerous allegations against powerful men and show evidence of trafficking and abuse. Yet neither Patel nor any official has faced consequences. The DOJ’s stance effectively forecloses investigations into the newly named individuals, leaving survivors to watch as the people implicated in their victimization remain unscathed.

This conflict of interest is stark. The missing files likely include the correspondence that would reveal who ordered prosecutors in 2007 to grant Epstein immunity. That same Justice Department now decides whether those officials should be investigated. Unsurprisingly, the department has already concluded there is nothing worth pursuing. When Massie and Khanna requested a special master to oversee the release, they emphasized that the DOJ “cannot be trusted to make the disclosures required by law.”

Their skepticism has been vindicated.

The Epstein files controversy did not occur in a vacuum; it fits a longstanding pattern in which politically connected individuals lie, commit crimes or betray the public trust yet escape real consequences. Two decades before Epstein’s case, President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. On his last day in office, Clinton admitted he had “knowingly gave false answers” about Lewinsky and agreed to a five year suspension of his law license. In return, Independent Counsel Robert Ray granted him immunity from prosecution, ending the investigation without charges. A president confessed to perjury and walked away with a fine.

Highranking intelligence officials have similarly evaded accountability. In 2013, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper responded to Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) question, whether the National Security Agency collects data on millions of Americans, by saying “no, sir.” Clapper later admitted his answer was the “least untruthful” response he could conjure. Legal analysts noted that witnesses rarely face charges for lying to Congress. Commentators lamented that “politically wellconnected individuals [are] systematically excluded from the threat of prosecution” and that these elites “can publicly admit [violations] without any real worry about being prosecuted, convicted, or sent to prison.” This selective impunity is an abuse that undermines the rule of law.

The intelligence community provides further examples. John Brennan, a longtime CIA official and Barack Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, told reporters in 2014 that the CIA was not spying on Senate staffers reviewing the agency’s torture program. An internal inspector general report later found that the CIA had hacked the Senate’s computers, forcing Brennan to privately apologize. Commentators noted that Brennan had “blatantly lied” to the public. Despite calls for his resignation and clear evidence of deception, Brennan faced no prosecution and soon thereafter was promoted to CIA director. The episode underscored how intelligence officials can lie to Congress and the public with impunity.

The pattern extends across party lines. The FBI’s 2016 investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server found that she sent or received dozens of classified emails on the private system. Yet then-FBI Director James Comey concluded that although there was evidence of potential violations, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” recommending no charges. Comey acknowledged that others who mishandled classified materials often face administrative sanctions but insisted criminal charges were unwarranted. In effect, a former secretary of state who violated statutes governing classified information was declared above prosecution.

This bipartisan pattern of impunity helps explain why the Epstein files are unlikely to lead to prosecutions. When Kash Patel, under oath, claimed there was no credible evidence Epstein trafficked anyone else, he effectively dismissed a mountain of allegations. When Pam Bondi withheld thousands of pages and claimed to have already released all relevant files, she relied on the same assumption: that elites will protect each other. The Epstein scandal thus becomes another entry in a long list of times the state shields its own.

The newly released files, by themselves, might not secure convictions but certainly warrant investigations. But the big question is, “Wnvestigations by whom?” Answer: the authorities, the same officials who redacted the files, missed deadlines and have already declared the case closed. Those authorities have repeatedly lied or dissembled in high profile cases and faced no repercussions. Expecting them suddenly to root out pedophiles and murderers among their own ranks is fanciful. The system has no intention of holding itself accountable.

The months leading up to the 2024 presidential election illustrated this cynicism. Candidates across the political spectrum promised to release Epstein’s files. Once in office, many abandoned the pledge. When Massie pushed the discharge petition, President Trump attacked him publicly and downplayed the issue. On social media, Trump called the document dump a hoax and claimed nobody cared, an attempt to gaslight the public into forgetting an important scandal. Other politicians dismissed the matter as a distraction. Yet the public response, millions reading the newly posted files, survivors demanding answers and crossparty outrage, showed that people do care. They simply lack mechanisms to enforce accountability.

The phrase “it’s still a coverup” encapsulates more than bureaucratic delay. It speaks to a broader indictment of the American justice system. The pattern is consistent: when the accused are poor or powerless, the law is merciless; when they are wealthy, connected or in government, it offers indulgence. The United States rarely prosecutes witnesses for lying to Congress and that a class of men has become “structurally ‘above the law.’” The failure to hold Epstein’s accomplices accountable thus cannot be dismissed as a bureaucratic hiccup; it reflects a system built to protect those at its apex.

From an economic perspective, the incentives are obvious. Prosecutors answer to political superiors who may be implicated. Lawmakers rely on donors whose names appear in flight logs. Intelligence officials know that transparency could expose their own misconduct. When the cost of investigations includes destroying one’s career and implicating allies, while the cost of inaction is limited to public criticism, rational actors choose secrecy. The Epstein Files Transparency Act attempted to alter those incentives by mandating disclosure, but without an independent enforcement mechanism, it failed. The law assumed good faith from an institution that has repeatedly demonstrated the opposite. The only recourse to enforce the act would be future votes by Congress to hold individuals, such as Pam Bondi, in contempt. But Congress has proven time and again to stop well short of real accountability.

For those who believed the Epstein files might deliver justice, the reality is sobering. The release is incomplete, redacted, and published under protest. The DOJ has declared its work finished and refuses further prosecutions. The FBI claims there is no credible evidence implicating anyone else, despite allegations to the contrary. Survivors, journalists, and members of Congress are left sifting through millions of pages, hoping to piece together a story the government refuses to tell.

If there is a silver lining, it lies in the erosion of unwarranted faith. Each failed promise strips away the illusion that the state will police itself. Seeing elites escape punishment while victims and whistleblowers suffer should prompt more people to withdraw legitimacy from a system that protects pedophiles and punishes truthtellers. It suggests that the next election, the next congressional hearing and the next round of partisan theatrics are less consequential than recognizing the rot at the core. As long as the same actors who helped Jeffrey Epstein secure a sweetheart deal are entrusted to investigate his network, there is no realistic expectation of justice. The American people deserve to know the truth, but they should not be surprised when the government refuses to provide it.

As Congressman Massie declared:

🇺🇸 Thomas Massie:

“I’m sorry if one of your billionaire donors is going to get embarrassed because he went to rape island…

How will we know if this bill has been successful? We’ll know when there are men — rich men — in handcuffs being perp-walked to jail. And until then, this… pic.twitter.com/DTWFpDLAgc

— brane mijatovic (@brane_mija64426) February 1, 2026

That promise remains unkept.